The Right Response #11

Fort Hood was a gun-free massacre zone in 2009 where 13 unarmed soldiers were slaughtered, they had no firearms to protect themselves against the well-armed Islamic Fundamentalist terrorist. It seems that politicians don't trust even soldiers to carry guns! But why not? Aren't soldiers professionally trained to carry and use firearms?

The massacre zone at the 2012 Batman movie mass slaughter killed 12 and injured 58 in Aurora, Colorado. The Century 16 theater parent company, Cinemark , enforced their strict gun-free policy at all their 459 theaters, even if you had a concealed carry permit.

The Virginia Tech campus where 32 were shot to death in 2007 was also a massacre zone, although major newspaper reports omitted this crucial fact. In 2006, a student with a legal permit was disciplined for carrying his gun at Virginia Tech. School bureaucrats emphasized their school was a strict "gun-free zone."

The Gun Free School Zone Act passed in﻿ 1990 ensured that both Columbine High School as well as Sandy Hook were massacre zones. Despite the state gun carry laws at the time, there was nobody armed at either school to protect the slaughtered children and teachers. Etc, etc, ...

1. Yet Armed Civilians Stop the Slaughter

Yet whenever anyone carrying a defensive firearm is already on the scene, many deaths are prevented.

The armed school principal stopped a massacre at the 1997 shooting spree in Pearl, Miss.

Another massacre was avoided by an armed bystander at the 2007 Salt Lake City Mall

The armed volunteer church member thwarted a massacre at the 2007 New Life Church in Colorado Springs

Two armed students stopped yet another massacre in the 2002 mass shooting at the Appalachian School of Law in Virginia

"The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when it started."

2. Would more Laws Avoid such Massacres

"One estimate, based on preliminary reports when the shooting in CT first happened, put the number of law violations, from the shooter first picking up the gun to finally offing himself, at 47 counts.

"And yet, somehow, a hypothetical 48th violation is supposed to dissuade the shooter. “Hey, I’ll be violating the law 47 times, including killing myself at the end, but 48 times is just too far, man. Yeah, right…"

3. Responsible Citizens with Guns Stop Mass Shooters

As the diagram shows, FBI evidence proves that violent crimes decrease as States loosen their gun laws.The evidence is unequivocal. Citizens with firearms are extremely effective in averting violent crime and massacres. Many mass shooters with illegally obtained guns are stopped by armed Americans already on the scene .

Click to Expand

Violent crimes decrease as gun laws loosen

Obviously, stricter guns laws mean less guns in responsible hands. They therefore reduce the number of responsible citizens who can stop a spree shooter. So although reducing the numbers of guns around may seem superficially attractive, the evidence is clear: Disarmed citizens are ... err ... disarmed.

The number of guns in private hands has been steadily increasing, along with a decrease in the number of firearms-related murders. In 1993, the rate of such murders was 6.6 per 100,000 people, whereas in 2011 it had more than halved to just 3.2 firearms-related murders per 100,000 people. A very sharp decline. See Gun control offers no cure-all in America

The USA has so many firearms already in circulation that criminals have little problem in illegally obtaining weapons. How would any gun ban, whether "assault weapons" or large magazines, do anything but decrease the number of armed citizens available to stop mass shooters?

4. We need to Stop the Slaughter

As President Obama himself has said: When is enough going to be seen as enough? We need to stop [the slaughter]. Indeed! But his supposed remedy makes absolutely no sense - disarming responsible citizens will instead exacerbate the problem. With more guns in law-abiding hands, there'll be more responsible people already on site to stop spree-shooters in their tracks.

5. If Only They'd been Armed

Is there any doubt that had the school not been a massacre zone and someone had been armed, the killer would have been shot? The murdered Sandy Hook principal, Dawn Hochsprung, “lunged” at the killer. If she'd been armed and trained to use it, how many children would still be alive today?

"[My] incredibly stupid decision to obey a bad law, and allow my family to get killed. And I was mad at my legislature, because ... they had legislated me out of my right to protect myself and my family."

Texas politicians have since altered this "bad law" which stopped her preventing her parent's massacre. Yet how many supporters of such bad laws enjoy armed protection at the expense of you - the taxpayer? Since elected politicians have armed protection, why don't they want you to enjoy the same?

6. Mass-Murderers Ignore the Law!

Some argue that laws tightening access will make obtaining guns legally more difficult, which is true, but irrelevant. Tighter gun laws would have made no difference to the Sandy Hook shooter who avoided background checks by stealing the guns. Criminals neither obey the law nor obtain firearms legally.

Democratic Senator Leahy says, “Lives are at risk when responsible people fail to stand up for laws that keep guns out of the hands of those who use them to commit murder.” Yet his gun control laws do nothing to solve the problem. Will such hypocrites continue to have armed guards for protection once his laws are passed?

Ninety-one percent of American Law enforcement officials say a federal ban on semi-automatic firearms, "assault weapons" would "either be useless or have a negative impact on fighting crime." The evidence is unequivocal, guns in responsible hands protect you and decrease the slaughter.

** Your Next Step **

You want your family safe and protected from criminal assault. Learn how to persuade hardened criminals to fear for their safety and leave town. Enjoy the whole story here:

Dramatically improve your family's safety

Do the police or the government have any legal duty to protect you [The

Convince your neighbors to take responsibility for their own protection

Slash the crime rate for your whole community

Protect you and your neighbors' vulnerable family, children and property with a Universal Gun Ownership Law. Find out how with this dynamic Special Report: The Right Response. Available for a limited period at a special introductory price. Get it today - right now!

The violent crime reductions benefit everyone when law-abiding, responsible citizens are encouraged to be able to defend their families and themselves from violent criminals, rapists, refugees, and terrorists. When women and seniors are armed, they can defend themselves from attacks by usually young, male and stronger violent criminals. Yet there's no sanction or penalty if you choose not to be armed. Despite misrepresentation and media misunderstanding, Universal Gun Ownership is neither Mandatory Gun Ownership nor Compulsory Gun Ownership, it's simply your choice.

All our products are fully guaranteed, these time-tested secrets of success are delivered electronically - no waiting for delivery.